K. S. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of IAs 6424/97 and 9492/ 97 both filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed suit inter alia alleging that under an agreement to sell dated 10. 7. 1996 defendants agreed to sell their land comprised in Khasra No. 59/22 (4-16), 23 (4-16) and 24/1 (0-12), total measuring 10 bighas and 4 biswas situated in village Nangal Thakaran valued at the rate of Rs. 9,30,000. 00 per acre. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants by way of advance/earnest money. As per the said agreement to sell the defendants were to obtain No Objection Certificate under the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 and Income Tax Clearance Certificate for the purpose of executing sale deed of the land contracted to be sold to the plaintiff. Sale deed was to be executed within a year from the date of the execution of the said agreement to sell. It is further alleged that after repeated representations, defendants moved application for grant of No Objection Certificate before the Tehsilder (Notification) on 2. 7. 1997 and the requisite permission was granted on 4. 7. 1997. However, defendants intentionally withheld information about receipt of No Objection Certificate till 7. 7. 1997 when the defendants informed the plaintiff that they would execute the sale deed on 8. 7. 1997. Plaintiff believing the representation made by the defendants reached the office of the Sub-Registrar on 8. 7. 1997 but the defendants failed to reach there. Immediately thereafter in the evening on 8. 7. 1997, plaintiff contacted the defendants and enquired from them in regard to their failure to reach the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of the sale deed. Defendants again assured the plaintiff to execute the sale deed on 9. 7. 1997 but they failed to reach the office of the Sub-Registrar. Again the plaintiff contacted the defendants in the evening on 9. 7. 1997 and asked them to execute the sale deed on the terms and conditions as set out in the aforesaid agreement to seii. Defendants again represented that they would execute the sale deed on 10. 7. 1997 and reach the office of the Sub-Registrar. Again the plaintiff contacted the defendants in the evening on 9. 7. 1997 and asked them to execute the sale deed on the terms and conditions as set out in the aforesaid agreement to seii. Defendants again represented that they would execute the sale deed on 10. 7. 1997 and reach the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is further stated that the plaintiff reached the office of the Sub-Registrar in the morning on 10. 7. 1997 and found all the defendants present there. Plaintiff offered to make the payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 17,76,250. 00 to the defendants and asked them to append their signatures on the proposed sale deed duly typed on stamp papers of Rs. 1,58,100. 00 also bearing the photographs of the plaintiff and the defendants thereon. Defendants started demanding extra money and on the plaintiff s refusal to accede to their demand the defendants left the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pitam Pura. Thereafter, plaintiff was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 11. 7. 1997 on the defendants requiring them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed on or before 18. 7. 1997. However despite service, no reply was sent by the defendants. It was prayed that a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10. 7. 1996 be passed against the defendants directing them to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 17,76,250. 00. In the alternative, a decree for Rs. 6,11,000. 00 towards damages and interest, etc. is sought to be passed against the defendants. It was further prayed that by a decree of permanent injunction defendants be restrained from transfering or parting with possession of the suit property in favour of any person other than the plaintiff. ( 3 ) IN IA 6424/97 filed alongwith the plaint defendants were restrained by issue of an ad interim injunction from selling the suit land or parting with possession thereof in favour of a third party. ( 4 ) IN IA 9492/97 filed on 25th September, 1997 it is inter-alia alleged that the Clause 5 of the agreement to sell dated 10. 7. 1996 clearly indicates that the possession of the suit land was handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff on 10. 7. 1996 itself. ( 4 ) IN IA 9492/97 filed on 25th September, 1997 it is inter-alia alleged that the Clause 5 of the agreement to sell dated 10. 7. 1996 clearly indicates that the possession of the suit land was handed over by the defendants to the plaintiff on 10. 7. 1996 itself. In para No. 2 of the written statement also defendants have admitted of their having delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on the aforesaid date. It is alleged that the defendants had been threatening to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and they have even tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from there. It was prayed that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land till the disposal of the suit. ( 5 ) DEFENDANTS have contested the suit as well as both the IAs by filing a written statement and replies. In the written statement it is not disputed that the defendants agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff under an agreement to sell dated 10. 7. 1996 andreceivedrs. 2,00,000. 00 by way of advance/eamestmoney as alleged. However, it is pleaded that after obtaining No Objection Certificate and the Income Tax Clearance Certificate defendant No. 2 personally met the plaintiff and informed him about the obtaining of both the certificates. Plaintiff agreed to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned on 10. 7. 1997 with typed sale deed and the amount of the balance sale consideration. Although, the plaintiff reached the office of the Sub-Registrar on the said date but he was neither having the typed sale deed nor the balance sale consideration. He was also not having with him the photographs of the defendants which the defendants had handed over to him earlier. It is stated that the defendants informed the Sub-Registrar that the plaintiff was not present alongwith dcuments and they got issued a receipt on 10. 7. 1997. Presence of the defendants was acknowledged by the Sub-Registrar in his office on the aforesaid date. Since the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract, agreement to sell stood rescinded and the amount of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 forfeited time being the essence of the agreement. It is emphatically denied that the defendants demanded extra money for signing the sale deed, as alleged. Since the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract, agreement to sell stood rescinded and the amount of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 forfeited time being the essence of the agreement. It is emphatically denied that the defendants demanded extra money for signing the sale deed, as alleged. ( 6 ) STAND taken in the reply to IA 6424/97 is identical to that taken in the written statement by the defendants. ( 7 ) IN reply to IA 9492/97 it is further alleged that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit land. It is the defendants who have remained in possession thereon at all material times and they continue to be in possession till date and have sown the crop of wheat in the suit land. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. ( 9 ) AS is manifest from the pleadings the controversy between the parties centres around the fact whether the typed sale deed was put to the defendants for signatures and the plaintiff was ready with the amount of the balance sale consideration for payment to defendants on 10. 7. 1997. Plaintiff has placed on record the photostat copies of the proposed sale deed written on stamp papers worth Rs. l,58,100. 00 , receipts regarding payment of registration fee, all dated 10. 7. 1997 and the pass book of S. B. Account No. 4091 of the Corporation Bank, Delhi. If the proposed sale deed was ready, there was hardly any reason for the plaintiff not to have put it to the defendants for signatures. Further, the entries made in the said passbook go to show the withdrawals of the amounts of Rs. 10,00,000. 00 on 9. 7. 1997 and Rs. 4,70,000. 00 on 10. 7. 1997 by the plaintiff besides a credit balance of Rs. 17,75,990. 00 as on 8. 7. 1997 in the account. These withdrawals and the credit balance prima facie indicate the availability of funds with the plaintiff for payment to the defendants. During the course of arguments much emphasis was placed by the learned Counsel of the defendants on the photostat copy of the application of presence submitted before the Sub-Registrar by the defendants on 10. 7. 1997. Said application is signed/thumb marked by the defendants and is addressed to the Sub- Registrar, Pitam Pura. During the course of arguments much emphasis was placed by the learned Counsel of the defendants on the photostat copy of the application of presence submitted before the Sub-Registrar by the defendants on 10. 7. 1997. Said application is signed/thumb marked by the defendants and is addressed to the Sub- Registrar, Pitam Pura. It is stated therein that the defendants entered into an agreement to sell of two acres of land with the plaintiff and 10. 7. 1997 is the last date and all defendants are present. Below the words "allowed" and the signature presumably that of the Sub-Registrar it is written thus at the bottom : "hum 1. 30 baje dopahar tak hazir rahe lekin doorsi party kagjat lekar nahin aai - Rohtash". ( 10 ) SUBMISSIOIN advanced by the learned Counsel of the plaintiff was that the said writing was inserted by the defendants later on with a view to create evidence against the plaintiff. My attention was drawn to a receipt also filed by the defendants wherein the purpose of the filing of the above application is shown as for being presented in Court. Ordinarily, signature of the Sub-Registrar together with the words referred to above should have appeared below the said writing in the hand of Rohtash, one of the defendants, if the entire application was written at the same time. Submission thus seems to be not without merit. That apart, in view of the admission made by the plaintiff about the defendants presence in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 10. 7. 1997, said application is of little relevance in the matter. ( 11 ) AS noticed above in the latter IA 9492/97, the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land. In the reply defendants have denied of their having put the plaintiff into possession of the suit land on 10. 7. 1997. In the plaint, plaintiff in addition to the claiming of decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell has sought the delivery of the vacant possession of the suit land and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from parting with possession of the land in suit. Had the plaintiff been delivered the possession of the suit land on the said late, there was no necessity on plaintiff s part to have claimed the reliefs to the above effect in the plaint. Had the plaintiff been delivered the possession of the suit land on the said late, there was no necessity on plaintiff s part to have claimed the reliefs to the above effect in the plaint. Clause 5 of the agreement to sell in question, therefore, cannot be pressed into service to support the plea about the possession of the suit land having been delivered to plainiff on 10. 7. 1997. Plaintiff appears to have not been put into possession of the land in suit on the aforesaid date as is alleged by the defendants and the said IA, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. ( 12 ) FROM the foregoing discussion, it must follow that the plaintiff has prima fade made out a case for restraining the defendants from selling the suit land and/ or parting with possession thereof by the defendants pending suit. Non-grant of ad interim injunction is likely to cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Balance of convenience obviously lies in favour of the plaintiff. Having reached this conclusion it need not be examined whether the time was the essence of the contract or not in this case. ( 13 ) RESULTANTLY, IA 6424/97 is allowed and the exparte order dated 1st August, 1997 is made absolute. IA 9492/97 is dismissed. No order as to costs.